At 14:40 30-01-1998 +0100, Tzu Jan Gieszen <taosnet@euronet.nl> wrote:
>i try to understand chaotic processes form within (tzu jan in chinese). i
>did read the prigogine books and entropy production
>i am at a bifurcation point in life. long time obedience to rules of
'fathers', 'mothers', 'brothers' and 'sisters' and letting loose come
together over my head.
> 10 years ago
>a painful period of immergence started.
>i feel a catalyst in change of persons and organisations. my guidance is
>the natural way of things, the tao.
>one thing that spooks in my soul is 'the right to change'. in the eye of
>change, the production of entropy high, opposing forces present, turbulent
>flux, my doing and letting (wu wei) open, the mutual arising (hsiang
>sheng) unavoidable and the forces to comply, attach, depend, follow,
>immerge strong [in me and the other in any complementarity], what is then
>'the right to change' oneself and / or the other?
Thank you very much, Tsu Jan, for your enlightning post.
Thank you for putting together the TAO and Prigogine, and giving us a very
vivid and personnel experience of how they can work inside any human
beeing ( if one is sensitive enough to feel them).
And, of course, one has the right ( or the obligation ? ) to change
oneself. In what concerns changing the others, I would be more careful.
Some comments:
If one changes ( or becomes) he/she always change the others, in a "by the
way" sense. But one must be careful about not being "manipulative", and
about thinking that one has "the right to change the other". [ those that
for a long time imposed rules on you, were not trying to "change you" in a
certain direction ?]
The "changes" that one try to impose to others normally prevent the others
to really change. To change - in the sense of "becoming" - must be
directed from within. What one can do is to "facilitate" ( or to be a
"catalist", to use your own words). But this must be obvious to you, I
think, if you are following the TAO ( "the natural way of things").
And thanks to you too At de Lange to for the enlightenment of your
comments :
Replying to LO16775, At de Lange wrote :
>Tzu Jan, you had a very spooky life. I have the greatest admiration for
>the fact that you have been able to articulate in your contribution which
>I, unfortunately, had to snip so much of.
( Snip) ( me too...)
>This is the very essence of the essentiality "becoming-being". Being and
>becoming must be balanced - the one cannot be stressed to the detriment of
>the other. You are not only a being. but also a becoming. Your becoming is
>not less important than your being. Should it become so, then since
>"becoming-being" is one of the seven essentialities of creativity, you
>creativity will be seriously impaired. Whenever you then try to construct
>(emergently or digestively), destructions (immergences or consumptions)
>will prevail.
May I stress the "becoming" over the "being" ? In a certain sense "one is
not a person"; one "becomes a person" ( when one does...). That is why
"learning"
( not in the sense of accumulating knowledge, but in the sense of
investigating/living/sharing/becoming) is so important.
That's why I agree again with At de Lange when he writes ( in a different
post):
>There is only one virtue which I never cease to enjoy in myself and in
>others:
>
> -- Learning
Learning is becoming...
Artur
--Artur Ferreira da Silva <artsilva@individual.EUnet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>